Citation Nr: 0519207
Decision Date: 07/15/05 Archive Date: 07/22/05
DOCKET NO. 03-30 079 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland,
Oregon
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.
2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Oregon Department of Veterans'
Affairs
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Helen E. Costas, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served in the Army National Guard from February
1960 to January 1964.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a July 2002 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Portland, Oregon, which denied service connection for
bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus.
In April 2005, the veteran appeared at a travel board hearing
before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge. A
transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims
file.
FINDING OF FACT
An April 2005 VA-contracted audiological examination report
contains an opinion by the examining audiologist that the
veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus are more likely than not
related to noise exposure during his military service.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Hearing loss was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§
1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.
2. Tinnitus was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131,
5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)
In light of the favorable action taken herein, discussion of
whether VA has satisfied its duties pursuant to the Veterans
Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) is not required. The
Board finds that no further notification or assistance is
necessary, and deciding the appeal at this time is not
prejudicial to the veteran.
Factual Background
The veteran served in the Army National Guard from February
1960 to January 1964. The veteran's VA Form DD 214 lists his
military occupational specialty as cook. On a November 1961
audiological examination, pure tone thresholds, in decibels,
were as follows:
HERTZ
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
RIGHT
10
10
10
15
-10
LEFT
0
-5
10
5
-10
When ASA units are converted to ISO units as required for all
hearing tests conducted by a service department prior to
October 31, 1967, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as
follows.
HERTZ
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
RIGHT
25
20
20
25
-5
LEFT
15
5
20
15
-5
There are no other in-service audiological examination
reports of record.
In support of his claim, the veteran has submitted a May 2002
statement from his private hearing specialist. The veteran
had received treatment from 1961 to 1979 and had subsequently
been fitted with binaural hearing aids due to the veteran's
severe sensory-neural hearing loss. In March 2003, the
veteran's private hearing specialist reported that the
veteran was fitted with hearing aids in 1968.
A July 2002 rating decision held that service connection for
hearing loss and tinnitus was not warranted. The veteran
presented a timely notice of disagreement and clarified that
he did serve as a cook; however, this was just prior to
discharge. Before serving as a cook the veteran served as a
communications specialist and instructor, and he had also
undergone truck-driving school. While stationed at Fort Ord,
the veteran was required to have training on antitank
grenades and fire M-1 rifles with no hearing protection.
The veteran also submitted a March 2003 buddy statement
corroborating his statement that he underwent training with
rifle grenades and that the veteran's ears were affected to
such an extent that he reported to sick bay. During a March
2003 regional office hearing the veteran testified that his
hearing loss began during boot camp due to the firing of
antitank grenades. Following this exercise his ears began to
hurt and he reported to sickbay wherein he was administered
"sweet oil."
At an April 2005 Travel board hearing, the veteran submitted
an April 2005 statement and audiological report from R. A.
Anderson, a clinical audiologist who preformed an
audiological evaluation under contract to the VA. The
veteran reported with complaints of long-term hearing loss
and tinnitus. Otoscopy revealed clear canals bilaterally and
audiological testing revealed a moderately severe to profound
sensorineural loss bilaterally. The examiner opined that the
veteran's "hearing loss and tinnitus are more likely than
nor related to noise exposure during military service ."
Audiological testing showed the following pure tone
thresholds, in decibels:
HERTZ
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
RIGHT
65
70
110
115
110
LEFT
65
70
105
115
115
Word recognition was 44 percent for the right ear and 56
percent for the left ear.
Legal Criteria
Service connection may be granted if the evidence
demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an
injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military
service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service
connection may be demonstrated either by showing direct
service incurrence or aggravation or by using applicable
presumptions, if available. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039,
1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Direct service connection requires evidence of a current
disability with a relationship or connection to an injury or
disease or some other manifestation of the disability during
service. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2000). Where the determinative issue involves medical
causation or a medical diagnosis, there must be competent
medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible;
lay assertions of medical status do not constitute competent
medical evidence. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 494-97
(1997).
A disorder may be service connected if the evidence of record
reveals that the veteran currently has a disorder that was
seen in service with continuity of symptomatology
demonstrated thereafter. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2004).
When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative
evidence regarding any issue material to the determination,
the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. 38
U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002).
Analysis
The veteran alleges that he is entitled to service connection
for hearing loss and tinnitus. He recounts that while in
boot camp he injured his ears during antitank grenade
training and rifle qualification.
The veteran has submitted a statement that he was issued
hearing aids in 1968. Additionally, he submitted an April
2005 audiological opinion stating that it was more likely
that not related to his noise expose in service.
The most recent audiological examination contains an opinion
by a clinical audiologist that the veteran's hearing loss and
tinnitus were more likely than not incurred during active
service.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the veteran's in-service
noise exposure warrants service connection for hearing loss
and tinnitus.
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted.
Service connection for bilateral tinnitus is granted.
____________________________________________
RONALD W. SCHOLZ
Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs